Looking for some opinions...

[ThinkingManNeil]

Hi All;

I'm looking for some opinions on something not FSX related, name X-Plane. I know it's been around for some time, but I've never used it; I am thinking of purchasing it because one of its most recent versions features an ultralight that I'm really interested in, namely the Aerolite 103. I know that there are a few ultralights in both FSX and FS9, but there really isn't a very comprehensive selection in either (no one's tackled the one type I'd really like to see, the classic Ultraflight Lazair. Someone was working on it some years back, but that project apparently stalled and died). So I'm wondering how X-Plane compares to FSX vis a vis modeling, flight dynamics, scenery, frame rates, etc.? Is it worth the investment?

Thanks in advance,

N.

[warchild]

XP-11 is an outstandiung simulation. it has an easy to use user interface regardless of whether your selecting a plane, adjusting where on your airfield you want to start out, weather, you name it. Laminar really went out of their way to make this the easiest to use version of x-plane ever. It's ATC still sucks, but tthere are plugins. I would certainly recommend it to anyone considering it. I love my X-plane. I love fsx and P3D too ( theyre easier ), so check it out more, but you really cant go wrong.

[txnetcop]

X-Plane 11 is easier to use and is a ton of fun. It has AWESOME graphics for aircraft and landscape...however I will never give up my older sims because of the money I have spent on them and nostalgic value.
Ted

[odourboy]

I could not think of a better platform to fly an ultralight in. X-Plane excels at scenery, autogen, night lighting so low and slow ultralight flying is perfect.

Tons of great freeware available!


IMHO, you want a powerful system, particularly in the GPU dept. with lots of video RAM to enjoy the higher X-Plane settings. I'm personally not as convinced of the superiority of the flight dynamics (esp. the ground handling), but it's fine.

For the price, it's a no-brainer.

[b52bob]

I bought xp 7 and xp 9 and really hated it. Decided to give it one more try of xp 11 on sale at steam. I’m glad I did. The graphics and scenery are outstanding and there is tons of freeware. Payware is great and generally priced lower than fsx or P3D. I primarily us xp 11 now but still have FSX/P3D for the addons of aircraft that 8 still like to fly.

if your computer can run P3D V4 it should have no problem running xp. The previous comments still do apply regarding the more powerful system the better especially the cpu.

[warchild]

ok. before we all turn into a bunch of flag wavers, lets point out the realities as we have experienced them. Yes, everything we've said is true, but xp-11 isnt godlike.
XP-11 made great strides in getting atmospherics correct, and its inbuilt weather control system is genius, but, your going to want a third party weather program ( the one that uses NOAA is very nice and free ), and possibly a sky textures program.
As mentioned ATC sucks dingleberries.
Not all XP-10 aircraft were created equally, so make sure to buy only XP-11 aircraft at first.
I want to make a comment on scenery, because traditionally XP has never populated airports, BUT, Laminar has gone full guns on providing us excellent in game airport scenery. I just took off from KRDM, an airport right here in high desert Oregon ( read, the furthest place from the bright center to the galaxy ) and the terminal is there. The right terminal is there. Not just some default hacked together piece of crap that even p3d doesnt deign good enough to model, no, the correct buildings are there. Now, its not fully complete, but it would take a local like me to notice that the ODF isnt there ( they have a smoke jumper base there ) and other small concerns arent there. No problem. Theres more than FSX or P3D ever had.
Terrain: When Laminar started work on XP-112, they didnt want to make a good simulation, they wanted to make a great one: One that could replace FSX, and that included terrain and they succeeded magnificently. You might want to consider a third party mesh of the area youll be flying in. Although the textures are great, the shapes of the mountains are very much fsx like.

[Penzoil3]

Let's also mention that there is a setting to import your FSX keyboard settings.
Sue

[blanston12]

I always liked that the x-plane slogan is "More powerful. Made usable." meaning they admit all previous versions were unusable.

I am sure if I was starting from scratch I would be more open to X-Plane but as it is, even with "FSX keyboard settings" there are still lots of settings that either don't match or don't work the same way and there is a pretty steep learning curve. I was trying to do a flight in there default 737, I could not figure out how to get the autopilot to turn on and could not figure out how to patch in a popup GPS to navigate. It has an FMC but I don't know how to use it and did not quite have time for the master class needed to figure it out. I eventually did get where I wanted to go as a VFR flight but it more difficult expected.

But I did like that when you restarted the sim by default it restarted you with the same location/aircraft that you had when you stopped.

[warchild]

I always liked that the x-plane slogan is "More powerful. Made usable." meaning they admit all previous versions were unusable.

I am sure if I was starting from scratch I would be more open to X-Plane but as it is, even with "FSX keyboard settings" there are still lots of settings that either don't match or don't work the same way and there is a pretty steep learning curve. I was trying to do a flight in there default 737, I could not figure out how to get the autopilot to turn on and could not figure out how to patch in a popup GPS to navigate. It has an FMC but I don't know how to use it and did not quite have time for the master class needed to figure it out. I eventually did get where I wanted to go as a VFR flight but it more difficult expected.

But I did like that when you restarted the sim by default it restarted you with the same location/aircraft that you had when you stopped.

Welll, that very same 737 exists in fsx and p3d. The difference is in fsx and P3d, you can ignore the stuff you dont know or understand and simply have fun flying the plane. Fsx almost prides itself on being as simple or as complex as you want it to be. X-Plane was originally designed to be used by flight instructors to assist teaching new pilots to fly. You can still buy it for that express purpose, but it costs a whole lot more than sixty dollars, and requires a setup far more complex than most enthusiasts are willing to consider. So yes, X-Plane is more complex, but fsx "can" be just as complex ( The PMDG 737NGX for example ). Since your flying an ultralight, its easy peasy. it goes yp, it goes down, it banks and stalls. If however, you want to get deeper into flying, there are a few study level simulations out there. What is meant by study level?? Study level is a simulation that can be used to acquire hours towards your intended license. Take the LES Saab 340 for example. You can buy it as a plane to fly in sim, but its also used by saab and several airlines for teaching their pilots how to fly the thing properly.. The nice thing is that even though theres no Cntrl-E most developers are merciful enough to include a way to start everything up without having to have a degree in starting airplanes.. Theres also a Boeing 777 study level aircraft out there.. It's scary. I own it.

[Mach3DS]

I greatly respect all the responses so far. I'm also on the cusp of getting XP11. I've only ever used XP8/9. Didn't like them too much at the time. But I've heard that 11 is major improvement and so far it actually looks like it is. One thing to remember, just because you can get the X-plane key to make your sim a certified FTD with the appropriate hardware, doesn't mean it's superior. If you've ever used a FRASCA instrument FTD you'll know that certified doesn't mean realistic. One other thing to consider, P3D is being used in simulators as well. Adam Breed (LM P3D project manager) said everything other than "The F-35 simulators are powered by P3D" in his latest interview. It was completely inferred. And honestly P3D if you are talking more accuracy is capable of being more accurate, because it employs more data points than XP and has the ability to draw on more tabular data. According to my aero-engineering buddies and my developer pals the actual ranking in terms of most capable/robust Flight Dynamics Engine is the following:

1. DCS World
2. P3D
3. XP

I was surprised, but my developer buddy informed me that DCS is capable of more because they employ the MOST data points across a larger number of calculated variables. So, you can really nail the finesse of a flight model with all the quirks "better" than the other platforms. What does that mean for the end user? Well, honestly, to the uninitiated, probably not much. Unless you know the airframe in question you'll likely not be able to tell the difference. The one thing that DCS does better than all the other sims out there IMO, is sensation of motion at low level. I think the scale of of objects (I'm not sure how) is better? I've always thought that FSX/P3D trees were the wrong size.

As far as it has been explained to me, I know XP with it's real time flight dynamics is very cool. But it's like having 40 yarn tufts out on the old P-51 wing and saying that you've got a robust data set for calculating a flight model (I'm sure XP uses more than 40) but you get the idea. We only have so much computing power and running those calculations real time is a major deal. Pam could probably enlighten us further about that...

My $0.02...

Rick

[Daube]

My understanding regarding flight dynamics is that XP does the things more logically, while P3D/FSX does what it is told to do.
This means that FSX/P3D planes are more likely to fly by the right numbers, provided the aircraft creator has specified these numbers in the right way. However, if the aircraft gets out of the normal flight domain (like, extreme manoevers, stalls, spins etc...), it usually performs quite badly, with very few exceptions.
On the other side, XP will probably have a much more believable behavior in these situations, but might have such precise behavior in the normal flight domain.
So each one has its pros and cons

The good thing with XPlane 11 is that is has a free demo, which lets you download the area around Seattle and fly for 20 minutes before you loose your controller and have to restart the sim.
I would strongly recommend anybody to give it a try, it won't cost you anything.
You can install almost any addon on the demo too. Including texture mods (for sky) or shader mods (for lighting/colors... like SHADE for FSX/P3D).
The night lights of the cities in XP11 are second to none. Flying at dusk/dawn in XP11 is one of the coolest things I've ever done in a sim, putting FSX and P3D to shame. The default helicopter (S-76 I think) will be perfect for that.

That being said, I still use mainly P3Dv4. Does not look as good as XP11, but it simply has more addons, especially for planes.

[b52bob]

Check out the screenshots in the XPlane forum to get an idea of some of the aircraft available and what the sim looks like.

Bob

[roger-wilco-66]

When I went to Oshkosh in 2016 Lockheed had T-50A simulator, cockpit and all, on display, which also could be flown by the audience. Judging by the graphics the simulator definitely ran on P3D.

Cheers
Mark

[warchild]

I greatly respect all the responses so far. I'm also on the cusp of getting XP11. I've only ever used XP8/9. Didn't like them too much at the time. But I've heard that 11 is major improvement and so far it actually looks like it is. One thing to remember, just because you can get the X-plane key to make your sim a certified FTD with the appropriate hardware, doesn't mean it's superior. If you've ever used a FRASCA instrument FTD you'll know that certified doesn't mean realistic. One other thing to consider, P3D is being used in simulators as well. Adam Breed (LM P3D project manager) said everything other than "The F-35 simulators are powered by P3D" in his latest interview. It was completely inferred. And honestly P3D if you are talking more accuracy is capable of being more accurate, because it employs more data points than XP and has the ability to draw on more tabular data. According to my aero-engineering buddies and my developer pals the actual ranking in terms of most capable/robust Flight Dynamics Engine is the following:

1. DCS World
2. P3D
3. XP

I was surprised, but my developer buddy informed me that DCS is capable of more because they employ the MOST data points across a larger number of calculated variables. So, you can really nail the finesse of a flight model with all the quirks "better" than the other platforms. What does that mean for the end user? Well, honestly, to the uninitiated, probably not much. Unless you know the airframe in question you'll likely not be able to tell the difference. The one thing that DCS does better than all the other sims out there IMO, is sensation of motion at low level. I think the scale of of objects (I'm not sure how) is better? I've always thought that FSX/P3D trees were the wrong size.

As far as it has been explained to me, I know XP with it's real time flight dynamics is very cool. But it's like having 40 yarn tufts out on the old P-51 wing and saying that you've got a robust data set for calculating a flight model (I'm sure XP uses more than 40) but you get the idea. We only have so much computing power and running those calculations real time is a major deal. Pam could probably enlighten us further about that...

My $0.02...

Rick

I'm not so certain that i can provide anything "enlightening". And, topping that, I have no contradictions to state. Thats in part due to the fact that i know very little of the inner workings of either dcs or XP. I DO know that after looking at XPs FDE worksheet just one, I flat out refused to ever attempt and fde for it, and that still stands.
I'm amazed at your timing Rick, specifically in the realm of getting to know an aircraft. I was just now working on the X-3. Now heres a plane that can only be described as a work of madness. No one who just flies it will ever understand, just how mad it is. Like any man made monster, it borderlines on absolute genius. The way its designed, indicates that after the X-1, the X-3 was designed to allow a plane to fly at mach two, without any of the effects seen on the X-1, and i dont just mean it has a "flying" tail. As a plane enters trans-sonic speeds, the center of gravity ( CG ) moved backward. In this plane it moves to 22% mean aerodynamic cord which places it about a quarter of the way down the wing. This causes the tail to drop and the nose to lift. This would be fine normally, because the pressure wave from going trans-sonic is also moving backward along the wing. So youve effectively got the majority of the plane, hanging out in space ahead of the pressure cone. Douglas angled the engines by ten degrees. That angles the thrust from the engines also by ten degrees, BUT, its being kept entirely inside the engine tunnel because at the last three feet o=f that tunnel, it makes an ubrupt turn upwards to zero degrees ( just before the annular rings for the afterburners ). No wonder that whole section is made from titanium. The resulting thrust angle vector is around five degrees extenally, which is enough to counter the after moving CG. You still dont have any trim authority above mach 0.95 but at least you wont be aiming for the moon.
You see, Most people would never see that, until they remove the plane from its flight envelope, and then, it swat's you real hard. All these sims can do this, IF the engineer enters the correct data in the correct place. Which one does it best is whichever one had the best engineers building the planes. Me?? I'm a crackpot. I dont know calculus. I barely know any trignometry. Plane algebra, that I know. However, most of these guys are amazing.
As for computing power?? I dont know DCS so I cant say. Both ESP based sims and XP make use of both the CPU and GPU. FSX and P3D assign the textures to the GPU while the model and all the math is dont by the CPU. ODDLY, or maybe not, it takes just as much computing power to fly the default cessna in FSX as it does the default 737. it's when uou start adding in systems with specific xml that the weight starts getting added on. textures can drag you down too. The higher the resolution of the textures, the more power it takes to drive it. A 4K display has 8 million pixels it's displaying. Those have to be redrawn 60 times a second to satisfy most people. Thats 480 million pixels redrawn every second. Thats a lot of work. needless to say, the more power you can put behind your sim regardless of which sim it is, the better, with the exception of FSX which is 32 bit, and limited in what it can access.. Naturally, the 64 bit applications are capable of a much finer granularity of processing and texture display, and both P3D and XP are fully capable of some amazingly realistic renditions. However, 64 bit is new, even for XP. I personally dont feel its been fully explored yet, especially with the advent of DX12 and Vulkan/Open GL. The future for both of those sims is going to be amazing.

[warchild]

Check out the screenshots in the XPlane forum to get an idea of some of the aircraft available and what the sim looks like.

Bob

Ooooo.. Jar designs, DDen and FFS, LES. Dont get me drooling. Wait.. Rudder trim?? Aileron trim?? What do you mean these planes dont fly on rails?? Oooo sadness,, I might have to learn how to fly ::LOL::

[Mach3DS]

Thanks Pam. In fact, DCS has already announced that they are migrating to Vulkan API. So that *should* provide a performance boost...hopefully.

[PRB]

...Plane algebra...

You made a funny...

[IanP]

The only things I will add to this are that the default scenery in XP11 leaves all the previous versions standing, but its much vaunted flight dynamics are still no panacea, nor even "better" than FSX's. They're just different.

Take an aerobatic aircraft (there are a couple of default ones in XP11) and spin it. Or, well, try to. They really don't like spinning, which should be innate in a system supposedly driven by laminar airflow over the wings. Also, the ground dynamics are horrible. Get used to constantly feeling like you're taxying on sheet ice covered with teflon or something equally non-stick. Also, don't try and taxi amphibious aircraft into the water in XP11 - you'll do a neat and extremely unrealistic backflip.

That said, I really, really, like XP11. There's a fantastic freeware addition to the default B737, which brings it almost up to the level of the best available in any sim - and it's freely available. There's a not-quite-so-complex, but still significant, improvement to the MD-82 as well. There are a distinct lack of WW2 aircraft, though!

Cheers,

Ian P.

[Mach3DS]

The only things I will add to this are that the default scenery in XP11 leaves all the previous versions standing, but its much vaunted flight dynamics are still no panacea, nor even "better" than FSX's. They're just different.

Agreed!

...Take an aerobatic aircraft (there are a couple of default ones in XP11) and spin it. Or, well, try to. They really don't like spinning, which should be innate in a system supposedly driven by laminar airflow over the wings. Also, the ground dynamics are horrible. Get used to constantly feeling like you're taxying on sheet ice covered with teflon or something equally non-stick...

Oh wow, Taxiing is still like that? I remember that from XP8. one of the biggest turn offs for me.